Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .11
Yea, hath God said
In the third chapter of Genesis we have recorded for us how our first father Adam sinned against God’s clear command. As a result of this act of disobedience the whole human family has been born in sin. To bring about this ‘fall’ Satan slithered up to Adam’s wife Eve in the form of a serpent and sowed some seeds of doubt in her mind about God’s Word. ‘Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’ was the question Satan asked of Eve.'
God had been quite clear in His command, ‘But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’ But Satan caused Eve to question the validity of God’s command. As the conversation with Eve developed Satan moved on from using ‘Doubt’ to employing the tactic of ‘Denial’. In verse 4 he said to Eve ‘Ye shall not surely die:’ Sadly Eve was sucked in, tucked into the forbidden fruit and was soon followed by her husband Adam. The devils tactics of ‘Doubt’ then ‘Denial’ finally lead to ‘Disobedience’.
6000 years later is Satan still interested in God’s Word? You can be sure he is! He is still trying to cast ‘Doubt’ and he is still trying to ‘Deny’ it to anyone who will listen to his lying tongue. He casts ‘Doubt’ and ‘Denial’ from the mouths of Militant Atheists, he casts ‘Doubt’ and ‘Denial’ from the mouths of Liberal Theologians, therefore it should not surprise us to learn that he casts ‘Doubt and ‘Denial’ through the pens of the textual critics behind modern versions of the Bible.
The last eleven verses of Mark’s Gospel are a case in point. These verses are a tremendous account of that great resurrection morning when Mary Magdalene came to the Garden tomb looking for the body of our Lord Jesus not to mention other witnesses of the Resurrection. However, a footnote in the NIV states ‘The most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16 v9-20’. Ditto NCV, ESV, NASB, The Message. DOUBT, should those verses really be in the Bible? Yea, hath God said? I can almost here the hiss of the serpent in this footnote.
The resurrection is not the only important doctrine to have this kind of treatment. In 1 John 5 v 7 the doctrine of the Trinity is attacked. The AV says ‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’ The NIV, NCV, NASB & ESV all remove the second part of this verse with a footnote to justify the omission, the NKJV includes the complete verse but question the later half saying ‘NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.’
How is the average Christian who has not received theological training or is not familiar with the original languages to react to the many similar footnotes found throughout the new Bibles? Can they rely on a verse that is called into question, how do they know? They will have to seek advice form the ‘experts’. Oh no, we have just created Protestant Popery. You poor lay people cannot understand the Bible without consulting the textual experts; they will help you understand the Bible. I’m sure the Berean Christians would have had a hard time searching the scriptures if they had been full of footnotes calling into question the reliability of God’s Word.
A final example is Acts 8 v 37 where Philip is witnessing to the Ethiopian Eunuch who asks, is there anything hindering me from being baptisted, ‘And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ What a great statement the Eunuch makes here, confessing with his mouth his new found faith in Christ. Sad to say this verse has been omitted from the NIV & the ESV while the NCV & NASB put it in brackets with a footnote calling it’s inclusion into question. The NKJV for it’s part has a footnote stating ‘NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.’
The thing that gets me about the NJKV is this, it claims to be the 5th revision of the AV, it claims to rely on the received text. If that is the case and it’s creators are really operating in the spirit of the AV and only trying to modernise AV’s English then why do they feel the need to give credence to texts outside of the received text tradition? To me this seems dishonest.
I’m sticking with the AV and I’ll not have some Protestant Pope telling me what should be in the Bible. As I said in the blog entitled ‘Dodgy Documents’ I am convinced God has had His preserving hand upon His Word and the AV is reliable translation of His Preserved Word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem with the above, Maurice, is that you have made a particular selection of Greek and Latin texts (and the translation based on them - the AV) THE New Testament Scripture.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that? It's wrong because if true it means there was no New Testament from the time of the apostles until 1611 - for neither the Greek-speaking churches or the Latin had that exact text.
You are making the AV translators 'Protestant Popes', the infallible guides to the true text of Scripture. They weren't, nor ever claimed to be. They knew they were just men doing their best, and that others would follow who would be able to improve on their efforts.
Better evidence of the New Testament text would come to light, and difficult words would be explained - just as the AV men had improved upon what went before them.
It's not right to claim the TR is the perfect text, nor even that the AV is a perfect translation of the TR. Erasmus and Besa, and the AV translators of their work, had to assess what Greek texts were correct and what not, among the copies they had. They had few copies from which to select - indeed, part of Revelation had to be taken solely from the Latin Vulgate. We now have some 5000+ Greek manuscripts to compare.
From those texts we can say 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37 are not part of the New Testament given by the apostles. They are errors introduced at a later time. The Majority Text testifies against them.
Even the great opponent of the Critical Text, Dean Burgeon, said 1 John 5:7 had no place in the NT.
Anyone can claim their version of the Bible is THE Bible, but offering proof is another matter. The text of the TR cannot be shown to be perfect, no matter what principle of selection is adopted. Neither age nor majority support all parts of the TR.
The attempt by KJV Only folk to do so moves them into eclecticism - the true text is the one I pick, never mind what evidence there is against it.
It would be nice to say Erasmus was Divinely guided to make the perfect selection of Greek texts, and to add to them Latin texts to make up the perfect NT Scripture. We would then know that the TR is the perfect NT text. But that is not the case. Erasmus himself amended his text in, as I recall, three editions. By the time the AV men got to work, further amendments had been made.
One of Erasmus' amendments was the addition of 1 John 5:7. He had left it out of his first edition because there was no Greek manuscript that had it. But traditionalists pointed to the Vulgate - the Bible all involved had been reared on - and demanded the verse be included based on its inclusion in it. Erasmus said he would include it if ANY Greek manuscript could be found that had it in. A short time later, one was 'found' in Britain, and Erasmus had to keep his word. But he did make a note that he suspected the manuscript had been forged.
Since then a few other very late copies have emerged - but the vast majority of Greek manuscripts do NOT have it.
So are you saying we ignore the very many Greek witnesses and go instead for the very few? But that's the very criticism you make of the Critical Text used by the NIV, etc.
I too agree that God has preserved His word - but there is no reason to think the TR/AV is the perfect record of that word.
Wolfsbane said:
ReplyDelete"I too agree that God has preserved His word - but"
"BUT"
That says it all ...
That pretty much confirms to me where you stand on this.
You ignore everything that has already been said about how God has preserved His Word ... and how the texts you favour using in footnotes, etc. were not preserved in all generations nor in the Church’s mouth in all ages.
You have nothing to offer but doubt about God's promise to preserve His Word... the hiss of the serpent, as Maurice has put it.
No, Stephen, it is you who want texts in the Bible that have no, or almost no, support in the Greek manuscripts. Instead you appeal to the Roman Catholic Church's tradition, depending on its testimony to these non-Greek texts.
ReplyDeleteThat says everything about your concept of how God preserves His word.
If the testimony of the Roman church is what matters, what excuse have you for ignoring their other claims to infallible truth?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn that basis then, Wolfsbane, John Calvin must be (to your mind) guilty too:
ReplyDeleteConsider his words, for example, as regards John 8:1-11 (which you claim should not be trusted as Scripture ... you actually refer to it as a "spurious text"):
"It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it [John 8:1-11] has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it..."
- Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. XVII, page 319.
The fact is, Wolfsbane, your argument is nothing more than a strawman argument. Your claims are untrue, at any rate. You might deceive a few folks who are not familiar with the topic, but most folks will see through your twisting of truth.
'Consider his words, for example, as regards John 8:1-11 (which you claim should not be trusted as Scripture ... you actually refer to it as a "spurious text"):'
ReplyDeleteStephen, are you deliberately lying, or have you a problem reading without inserting your own meaning? I NEVER referred to John 8:1-11 as a spurious text. I hold it to be the words of God.
Maybe your answer here will reveal the nature of our whole debate. You may be lying, trying to smear me so that the readers will reject my argument. But you might just be so prejudiced that you cannot hear what an opponent says, instead you make him say what you think he would say. You know the Critical Text rejects John 8:1-11, and you want to have me do the same. Never mind I have been consistently defending the Majority Text against both the Critical Text and the Received Text.
The Majority Text has John 8:1-11. Only a tiny minority of texts reject it.
The Majority Text rejects 1 John 5:7. Only a tiny minority of texts support it. This is one of the places the AV is in error, siding with the tiny minority against the overwhelming majority of witnesses.
So let's hear from you.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteA couple of issues here, and for the record,
I was responding to YOUR accusation / slur against me:
"you appeal to the Roman Catholic Church's tradition, depending on its testimony to these non-Greek texts ... That says everything about your concept of how God preserves His word. If the testimony of the Roman church is what matters, what excuse have you for ignoring their other claims to infallible truth?"
I was pointing out that you were wrong to lie against me and / or smear me by saying that I was leaning on the testimony of the Roman church and considering Roman church tradition to be "all that matters" when I argued that certain texts, which were supported by Latin texts, should be included in the AV. I pointed out that Calvin must also be wrong, then, following your line of argument (which could be applied to a number of disputed texts).
I mentioned John 8:1-11 because this is one such disputed text (you were not specific in your accusation, earlier in the comment threads - you simply stated:
"But since it is you who is using Roman tradition to defend spurious texts"
That is a careless and general statement which could be applied to any disputed text in this context, ... John 8:1-11 is one such disputed text in the versions debate which is (and should be) included in the AV.
But, no I have no intention of deliberately misquoting anyone. I am glad that, in actual fact, you do not dispute John8:1-11. So, for the benefit of everyone, and to correct this:
- Wolfsbane does NOT argue that John8:1-11 should be omitted from the text. He believes it is "the words of God."
He does, however argue that 1John 5:7 should be rejected.
...and I can only understand his earlier accusations against me as meaning that he considers me to be someone who considers "Roman church tradition to be all that matters" because I believe that this ("spurious") text should be included as Scripture, as the Word of God.
Well, then, the main point still stands ... because Calvin said, in his commenatries, Vol.22, page 257:
"The whole of this verse [1John5:7] has been omitted by some. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake ... Since, however, the passage flows better when the clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."
Others argue that Calvin was wrong or mistaken here ... but at the end of the day he accepted it as the true reading ... and he is hardly to be accused of doing so out of a desire to lean on Roman church tradition!
I agree with him here, and I object to your evidently deliberate attempt to lie or distort my position before others in an attempt to undermine me.
I was mistaken to conclude that your very generalised accusation took in such disputed texts as John8:1-11 - and I am happy to now have the opportunity to put that right.
What I find amazing, however, is that you find no difficulty whatsoever in twisting and misrepresenting my position on numerous occasions, and trying to smear me with comments like "it is you who is using Roman tradition to defend spurious texts" and suggesting that "Roman church tradition is all that matters [in defending certain AV texts]"
I think it is the hight of hypocrisy for you to get so pedantic about being misrepresented (mistakenly), whilst deliberately misrepresenting me and my position... and continuing to do so.
You said:
"But you might just be so prejudiced that you cannot hear what an opponent says, instead you make him say what you think he would say."
To be honest, Wolfsbane, this is precisely the impression I get of you as I read your comments.
Anyway, I offer you a genuine and deserved apology for inadvertently misstating your position as regards John8:1-11.
Apology accepted. We all make mistakes.
ReplyDelete'I mentioned John 8:1-11 because this is one such disputed text (you were not specific in your accusation, earlier in the comment threads - you simply stated:
"But since it is you who is using Roman tradition to defend spurious texts"
That is a careless and general statement which could be applied to any disputed text in this context, ... John 8:1-11 is one such disputed text in the versions debate which is (and should be) included in the AV.'
If you had been listening with any care, you would have known I hold to the Majority Text, not the Critical Text. John 8:1-11 is part of the Majority Text, so why would I refer to it as 'spurious'?
'I was pointing out that you were wrong to lie against me and / or smear me by saying that I was leaning on the testimony of the Roman church and considering Roman church tradition to be "all that matters" when I argued that certain texts, which were supported by Latin texts, should be included in the AV.'
ReplyDeleteStephen, your argument made the Latin text superior to the great majority of texts. It is an appeal to a minority text, one that is in line with Roman Catholic tradition. Why ever would any Christian today favour this over the great majority of Greek texts?
Then you also went on to appeal to the Fourth Lateran Council in support of 1 John 5:7. A Papal council!!!
What was I supposed to think of these appeals to Roman tradition? I'm sorry, I have trouble getting into your mindset. How can you think that gives any support to your defence of 1 John 5:7?
'Well, then, the main point still stands ... because Calvin said, in his commenatries, Vol.22, page 257:
ReplyDelete"The whole of this verse [1John5:7] has been omitted by some. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake ... Since, however, the passage flows better when the clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."'
First point: Calvin did NOT appeal to the Latin text, much less any Papal council.
Second point: Calvin had only access to the few copies used by Erasmus (that formed the later Received Text) - he did not have the thousands of Greek manuscripts we do today.
He knew some of Erasmus' manuscripts had it, some not, and was uncertain: "But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert anything on the subject" (Commenatries, Vol.22, page 257).
Even Erasmus recognised the Greek did not support 1 John 5:7.
Calvin accepted the current text of his time, a text that depended on Roman Catholic tradition for this particular verse. Had he known of the vast number of Greek manuscripts that omitted it, I'v no doubt he would have accepted the Majority Text.
Apology accepted but lets go and muck-rake further! I don't think so Wolfsbane!!
ReplyDeleteIt demonstrates your utter gracelessness ... and hypocrisy in that you make patronizing statements such as:
"We all make mistakes."
whilst continuing in your attempts to slur, slander and misrepresent the position of your opponents.
Utter hypocrisy!
You know fine well (if YOU had been reading my comments since the start of this debate with any care) that I do not appeal to Papal councils or Roman tradition, or consider Roman church tradition to be "all that matters."
But no, instead you continue to misrepresent my argument.
It just goes to show how deep YOUR invective goes.
This demonstrates clearly how disingenuous a commentator you are.
Very sad in someone who claims to be a Christian!
And as for your second guessing what John Calvin would or would not have accepted on the basis of your own prejudiced mind ... hilarious, if it were not so serious!
Calvin, in the face of opposition from the critics of his day regarding this verse, nevertheless believed it to be the Word of God ... and I agree with him here. He did not do so for any love of Roman tradition, and neither do I.
You speak as if there were no credible manuscripts at all which supported this verse when you talk about minority texts ... you are a deceiver!
We have already discussed, particularly earlier on in this debate, about minority and majority texts, etc. To misrepresent my position like this is annoying at best and utterly un-Christian at worst.
It is also very interesting to note what other reliable men of God have said about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Henry:
"We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading."
"The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle... Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt — and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of v.8, but of v.7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost... If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt — they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt — they are one. And therefore Cyprian’s words seem still to be a firm testimony to v.7."
"It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book."
"I think, in the book of God,... the text [1 John 5:7] is worthy of all acception."
John Gill:
"As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom[e], has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."
"And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies, nine of them had."
"And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of the church fathers; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle, and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
It is also fallacious to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not "in the majority of texts" that it therefore cannot be legitimate. The issue of “majority” / “minority” is not the only consideration (as mentioned before in this debate).
ReplyDeleteIf considering 1 John 5:7 to be Scripture (God’s Word), and if preaching from it, and standing by it, is to be condemned … then I am happy to stand condemned along with men like John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and C.H. Spurgeon and many others, on this particular issue.
Wolfsbane, you have publicly stated that you believe 1 John 5:7 is not God’s Word … on your own head be it!
Stephen, you DID appeal to the Forth Lateran Council: 'On the grounds of overwhelming historical evidence, likely presented to them at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, they opted to re-include that verse in their copies.' http://watchmanneeded.blogspot.com/2011/03/dodgy-documents.html
ReplyDelete7 MARCH 2011 12:24
Your defence centred on the Western Church holing on to 1 John 5:7 over the centuries, and eventually influencing some to change their minds. The was the 'Western Church'? The Roman Catholic Church of the Dark and Middle Ages.
'It is also fallacious to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not "in the majority of texts" that it therefore cannot be legitimate. The issue of “majority” / “minority” is not the only consideration (as mentioned before in this debate).'
ReplyDeleteThat's the language of Westcott & Hort! You pick a text based on your preference, setting aside the great majority of witnesses and relying on the few. Calvin and the others had lack of evidence as an excuse - you do not. You and the TR defenders ridicule (rightly) Westcott & Hort for doing so to get their pet texts- yet you do the same. Hypocrisy is the only word for it.
Now if you had simply said W&H had made the wrong choice, you would not be a hypocrite. But you made a big case of them rejecting the great majority of textual witnesses and choosing the few corrupt ones. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Obviously, as a Calvinistic Baptist, I have major issues with the Church of Rome's doctrines, but I believe that the argument for the retention of this particular verse is right. Your argument is an extreme straw-man that states, in effect, that because I agreed with the western church at this juncture in history AS REGARDS RETAINING 1 JOHN 5:7 - then I am making Roman Catholic tradition the governing guide here, and, by implication, everything else they believed / believe). - That is a very dishonest argument, and a weak one at that!
ReplyDelete"Now if you had simply said W&H had made the wrong choice, you would not be a hypocrite. But you made a big case of them rejecting the great majority of textual witnesses and choosing the few corrupt ones. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!"
ReplyDeleteOh, Wolfsbane, if you could only allow your ignorant prejudice to stop blinding your judgement for one moment, then you would realise how silly, and ironically hypocritical, that sounds ... not to mention patronising!
E. C. Colwell said:
“Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copied from one; then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and that this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original; then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority ... a majority of manuscripts is not necessarily to be preferred as correct.” - E. C. Colwell, ‘Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Its Limitations’, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1969), p.65.
Wolfsbane, in one important sense, the flawed views of the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate make the numbers issue a lynchpin error of their respective systems in choosing texts – both swinging away from orthodoxy in two, albeit different, directions.
The critical scholar rejects the need to consider the numbers issue properly, whilst the modern Majority Text advocate makes the numbers issue his primary concern.
Both are mistaken.
It is true, as the Critical scholar argues, that the numbers issue is not the be-all and end-all. Nevertheless, it is one of a number of important considerations and should be considered properly.
It is true, as the modern Majority Text advocate argues, that the numbers issue is an important consideration. Nevertheless, it is only one (and not always the most important one) of a number of considerations which should be considered.
To accept or reject a text according to the methodologies of either the Critical scholar, on the one hand, or the modern Majority Text advocate, on the other, would only serve to confirm the mistaken conclusions that result from the flawed thinking in one or other of these systems.
The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
The translators of the AV achieved a vastly superior result.
"Calvin and the others had lack of evidence as an excuse - you do not."
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane, I quoted others, not only Calvin, who lived a lot closer in time to us and had plenty enough evidence to form a sound judgement as regards 1 John 5:7.
At any rate, Wolfsbane, if you want to say that 1 John 5:7 is not GOD'S Word ... then on your own head be it!
ReplyDelete'Your argument is an extreme straw-man that states, in effect, that because I agreed with the western church at this juncture in history AS REGARDS RETAINING 1 JOHN 5:7 - then I am making Roman Catholic tradition the governing guide here, and, by implication, everything else they believed / believe). - That is a very dishonest argument, and a weak one at that!'
ReplyDeleteNo, Stephen, you did not merely agree with their doing so - you used their doing so as SUPPORT for it being in the Scripture.
Again, another straw-man lie, Wolfsbane.
ReplyDeleteIf they were right in what they did, then to say that they did as evidence that the point carries weight does not mean that I agree with everything else or approve of everything that they did, nor does it mean that I attribute to them more than they deserve - your point is a pathetic and desperate attempt to smear me ... but it wont work ... because you are a twister ... and others have noticed this.
'The critical scholar rejects the need to consider the numbers issue properly, whilst the modern Majority Text advocate makes the numbers issue his primary concern.
ReplyDeleteBoth are mistaken.'...
'The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.'
Now, that is an improvement in your argument. A statement of the principles governing the choice of texts to include in Scripture. It does seem to get to the crucial difference between us. Thank you.
The problem seems to me to be this: if the great majority of Greek NT manuscripts can be trumped by a handful of other witnesses - a few mentions in some Church Fathers, inclusion in otherwise acknowledged corrupt manuscripts, and a disputed argument from grammar - then how can we be certain about any reading? Burgeon, that great opponent of the Critical Text, makes that very point.
If the great majority of manuscripts cannot be relied on in one place, they cannot be relied on at all.
So why do you make a big issue about the Critical Text folk rejecting the majority of manuscripts in favour of a few? You are doing the very same. And you are using their argument for doing so - that the majority of manuscripts descend from a corruption in the 3rd or 4th Century. Their earlier manuscript is therefore much more reliable (in their view).
The logic of your argument demands you abandon any appeal to the majority of manuscripts, and argue your case on the basis of some Church Fathers and grammar.
What that is then is another type of Critical Text. Unless you wish to appeal to Roman tradition as additional support.
'to say that they did as evidence that the point carries weight does not mean that I agree with everything else'
ReplyDeleteBy that 'reasoning' (I hesitate to use the word), the fact that most Greek scholars since Hort have supported the Critical Text must give strong evidence in support of not only 1 John 5:7 being omitted, but also the ending of Mark's gospel and several other passages.
Rome's support means nothing - they were defending their Tradition, not the purity of Scripture. Their defence of 1 John 5:7 carries NO weight.
"So why do you make a big issue about the Critical Text folk rejecting the majority of manuscripts in favour of a few? You are doing the very same. And you are using their argument for doing so - that the majority of manuscripts descend from a corruption in the 3rd or 4th Century. Their earlier manuscript is therefore much more reliable (in their view)."
ReplyDeleteYour patronising tone would be less irritating if you were taking an honest approach to your arguments ... but your constant lies and deceitful twisting is shameful and an utter waste of time. It does help to expose your position, though.
Your statement proves that you are unable / unwilling to read and comment honestly.
My statement should be read as it stands, not twisted to mean something else.
The fact is, as I said, the process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
"By that 'reasoning' (I hesitate to use the word), the fact that most Greek scholars since Hort have supported the Critical Text must give strong evidence in support of not only 1 John 5:7 being omitted, but also the ending of Mark's gospel and several other passages. Rome's support means nothing - they were defending their Tradition, not the purity of Scripture. Their defence of 1 John 5:7 carries NO weight"
ReplyDeleteDo you think that continuing with your circular straw-man lies will somehow make your lies become truth? You are bearing false witness with these false assertions about what I actually said.
Twist and turn and lie and try to deceive as much as you like, declare parts of God's Word to be not God's Word as much as you like ... but on your own head be it!
So your argument is proved by--your argument!
ReplyDeleteYou refuse to answer simple questions, under a smoke screens that they are 'straw-man' arguments and I am a liar.
Are you a politician? Then I will play the interviewer: 'I must ask you to answer the question, Minister. Why do you make a big issue about the Critical Text folk rejecting the majority of manuscripts in favour of a few? You are doing the very same.'
I've done some searching for evidence of 1 John 5:7 in the Church Fathers, but when it comes to actual quotes nothing seems certain. Claims are made by KJV-Only sites, but no actual quotations, nor references in which one finds them.
ReplyDeleteSince you claim to be knowledgeable in these matters, perhaps you can provide the specific references?
So, you are very immature as well as a liar and a straw-man arguer, and heretic.
ReplyDeleteFinally, for tonight, let me ask you about the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the KJV 1611. Earlier versions that included it at least gave warning that it was not canonical. Some omitted it altogether, for that very reason.
ReplyDeleteBut the KJV inserts it without comment - certainly giving credence to it as being the word of God. When the puritans asked for an edition that omitted it they were threatened with 1 year's imprisonment - by the same man who was over the KJV committee.
Does the KJV then not represent a step back from the Reformation, a step toward Rome?
No wonder the puritans were so unhappy with it.
You strain at a gnat in the NKJV, and swallow the camel of prayers for the dead and purgatory in the KJV.
Given that I have never argued for the inclusion of the Apocrypha, and never have and never shall use an AV with it included ... then your argument is, yet another straw-man lie.
ReplyDeleteThe flawed views of the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate make the numbers issue a lynchpin error of their respective systems in choosing texts – both swinging away from orthodoxy in two, albeit different, directions.
ReplyDeleteThe critical scholar rejects the need to consider the numbers issue properly, whilst the modern Majority Text advocate makes the numbers issue his primary concern.
Both are mistaken.
It is true, as the Critical scholar argues, that the numbers issue is not the be-all and end-all. Nevertheless, it is one of a number of important considerations and should be considered properly.
It is true, as the modern Majority Text advocate argues, that the numbers issue is an important consideration. Nevertheless, it is only one (and not always the most important one) of a number of considerations which should be considered.
To accept or reject a text according to the methodologies of either the Critical scholar, on the one hand, or the modern Majority Text advocate, on the other, would only serve to confirm the mistaken conclusions that result from the flawed thinking in one or other of these systems.
The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
The translators of the AV achieved a vastly superior result.
With specific regard to the flaws in the so-called "Majority Text" system, it should be noted that, as D.W. Cloud rightly points out:
ReplyDelete“The Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament claims to be a Majority Text, but this is simply a myth. The extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any sufficient degree of certainty.”
“Upon how much arid what sort of manuscript evidence is the new Majority Text built? The Hodges-Farstad Text "is not based on any new collations of manuscripts, but is derived mainly from the labours of Von Soden earlier this century. Von Soden and his assistants collated some hundreds of manuscripts, and published the results in a massive critical edition. In his footnotes, Von Soden shows the majority text by the symbol K (short for Koine, or ‘common text’). However, at any given instance of this symbol, one can rarely be sure whether Von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question, or consulted just a representative sample. And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available" (TBS)
Further testimony to the insufficiency of Von Soden’s work is given by Wilbur Pickering:
“Such has been the soporific effect of the W-H theory that the available evidence has not been evaluated, has not been assimilated. In Aland’s words, ‘the main problem of NT textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence Is known of most of the manuscripts so far identified, and that therefore we constantly have problems with many unknowns to solve. We proceed as if the few manuscripts, which have been fully, or almost fully, studied, contained all the problems in question’ (Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri," pp. 330-1).”
Much of the work that has been done is totally flawed. Thus, in his status report on The International Greek New Testament Project given to the Society of Biblical Literature on December 29, 1967, Colwell stated:
“The preparation of a comprehensive textual apparatus has required attention to previous editions of the Greek NT, viz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, Legg. Careful study showed that the textual evidence in these editions cannot be used in the IGNT apparatus, since they fail to cite witnesses completely, consistently, and in some cases accurately” (E.C. Colwell, et al., "The International Greek New Testament Project: a Status Report," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (1968), 192, note 13,).
So, Wolfsbane, even your very claim of "majority" cannot be trusted!
Furthermore, Cloud continues:
ReplyDelete"Pickering notes that the scholars are collating only "selected ones" from the 4,500 they have at hand. Therefore, nowhere in the world is there an effort being made toward the collation and examination of all or even most extant Greek manuscripts. It is ridiculous, then, to talk about possessing a "Majority Text" based solely upon the collated manuscript evidence at hand."
"The Hodges-Farstad Majority Text is insufficient in that it fails to cite sufficient textual evidence in determining which readings are the pure Word of God. In the Foreword to The Majority Text, the editors make the following sad statement:
The present edition does not cite the testimony [1] of the ancient versions or [2] church fathers. [3] Nor are the lectionary texts considered. This Is not because such sources have no value for textual criticism. Rather; it is due to the specific aims of this edition, in which the primary goal has been the presentation of the Majority Text as this appears in the regular manuscript tradition (The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane Hodges, published by Nelson, 1982, p. xviii).
The Majority Text is inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteAs Cloud points out:
"First, it is inconsistent in that it does not always follow its own majority principles.
Of the readings adopted in The Majority Text, 1240 "are shown in the footnotes as not having a clear overall majority of manuscripts in their favour. Further; In John 7:53-8:11 and Revelation . . . the editors have on a number of occasions adopted a reading found only in a minority of manuscripts" (Quarterly Record, Trinitarian Bible Society, No. 482, p.14).
We see, then, that even in the matter of the selection of readings, the majority principle is abandoned quite often in The Majority Text. This is a strange inconsistency.
Secondly, it is inconsistent in that some Westcott-Hort principles are employed even though the editors call these principles defective."
Dr. Waite said, regarding this matter:
ReplyDeleteThe Hodges "Majority Text" claims to be against the Westcott and Hart system, but adopts their "genealogical method." The editors write: "In this present edition, wherever genealogical considerations could not be invoked readings overwhelmingly attested among the manuscripts have been printed In the text" (p. xii).
What they mean is that they do not really believe in their own so-called "Majority Text" position if the Westcott and Hart false concept of "genealogy" is possible." This is, again, hypocrisy on their part.
The editors continued: "It is true, of course, that most modem textual critics have despaired of the possibility of using the genealogical method. Nonetheless this method remains the only logical one. If Westcott and Hort employed it poorly, it Is not for that reason to be abandoned" (p. xii)
Dean Burgon, In his book Revision Revised, pp. 253-257, discusses Westcott and Hart’s "Factor of genealogy." He wrote: "High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about ‘genealogical evidence,’ when applied to Manuscripts Is-Moonshine. . . . And perforce all talk about ‘Genealogical evidence,’ where no single step in the descent can be produced--in other words, where no Genealogical evidence exists--is absurd" (op. cit., pp. 255-56).
Dr. Waite, in his summary of the topic at hand, makes an important point:
ReplyDeleteI see in this entire regression from the Dean John Burgon methodology once espoused by Zane C. Hodges indeed a sad spectacle. I remember how Hodges for years had a paper he entitled a defense of the ‘Textus Receptus.’ Then he changed the title to the ‘Majority Text.’ I have seen him move closer and closer to the former Westcott and Hort position of textual criticism. Now we have seen him use the genealogical method of the Hortian heretics. We have seen him being quite at home with the Intrinsic and transcriptional probability of these same heretics. Where will it all end? Is there no bottom? One of our DBS Vice Presidents, Dr. David Otis Fuller, uses the expression ‘scholarolatry.’ Is this what Hodges is guilty of now? (The Dean Burgon News, May-August, 1985, pages 2-4).
Here is an article for anyone who is genuinely interested in knowing more about the authenticity of 1st John 5:7:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a102.pdf
The NKJV cannot, by any honest examination, be considered to be a more accurate version than the superior AV.
ReplyDeleteDr. DA Waite, further commenting on the defectives of the so-called "majority" text, had this to say:
ReplyDeleteCompletely to scuttle the testimony of [1] ancient versions, [2] church fathers quotations, and [3] the lectionaries In the laborious process of New Testament Textual Criticism Is not only to act foolishly and unwisely; not only to go In direct opposition to the sound principles of Dean John William Burgon [a scholarly Bible-believing textual critic of the 19th century]; but it is also to contradict the recommendations contained in another book published by the same publisher (Nelson) entitled The Identity of the New Testament Text by Wilbur N. Pickering (Nelson, 1977) with a foreword by none other than Zane C. Hodges! Which Nelson are we to believe? The 1977 Nelson, or the 1982 Nelson? Which Hodges are we to believe? The 1977 Hodges, or the 1982 Hodges? Has truth changed in just five years?
In 1896, Dean Burgon, in his Traditional Text of the Gospels (as edited by Edward Miller) outlined his "principles" of textual criticism (pages 19-39). The materials for this sacred science included [1] copies (page 21); [2] church lessons or lectionaries (page 22); [3] ancient versions (page 22); and [4] quotations of Scripture from the church fathers (page 22). Nothing was to be omitted from this process. Copies alone were not considered complete!
In 1977, Nelson published, Wilbur Pickering wrote, and Zane Hodges approved, by his foreword, the following words:
‘So then, how are we to identify the original wording? First we must gather the available evidence--this will Include [1] Greek mss. [2] (including lectionaries), [3] Fathers, and [4] versions. Then we must evaluate the evidence to ascertain which form of the text enjoys the earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respectable, the most varied attestation’ (Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., 1977 edition, page 137).
What caused the change of mind?
What was left behind by the absolute omission of [1] ancient versions, [2] church fathers, and [3] lectionaries?
For the ancient versions, Hodges has left behind all the early translations from the Greek language made at a primitive time and later. For the Church Fathers, Hodges has left behind all 89,489 quotations or allusions to the New Testament made by them, as catalogued by Dean Burgon in his 16 folio volumes in the British Museum [Cf. Pickering, Identity of the New Testament Text, 1977 edition, page 66).
For the lectionaries, he has left behind all 2,143 of them which have a direct bearing on the text of the Greek New Testament.
For Hodges and Pickering, who both profess to follow the Dean Burgon approach to New Testament Criticism, this threefold elimination of vital evidence Is, In my candid opinion, high treason to the Burgon cause!" (D.A. Waite, Defects in the So-called "Majority Greek Text, pp. 8-10).
Stephen, a further indicator of the error of your position is the sort of men you use to defend it.
ReplyDeletePlagiarists like Dr. David Otis Fuller. Did you know that his book, 'Which Bible', incorporated much of Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson's 'Our Authorized Bible Vindicated' without crediting the author? He followed in that the example of another KJV-Only advocate - one I read and trusted in my Christian youth - James Jasper Ray. Ray published Wilkinson's work under the title, 'God Only Wrote One Bible'.
Want to know why the secrecy? Because it was a Seventh Day Adventist work. Heresy spawned heresy - but it is gullible believers today who pass it on.
See:
OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED
http://www.godrules.net/library/wilkinson/wilkinson.htm
You begin with a charge, and then ask an (evidently dishonest) question as to whether or not I was aware of something.
ReplyDeleteI note that you use Hodge - a man who holds to the wrong side of the Lordship debate - to promote your spurious, hypocritical and inaccurate belief system - a system that invents your own so-called "majority text" which is demonstrably NOT what it claims to be, as evidenced by scholars of every description.
You claim to have been easily swayed in your youth ... but it would appear that you are still easily swayed!
As for heresy... you , as some sort of self appointed protestant pope who believes that certain parts of God's Word are not God's Word, are hardly the man to be accusing others of "heresy"!
Hmm. Seems my posts are being deleted. I've posted one twice and it has gone twice. Another is still there after several minutes.
ReplyDeleteI am reposting the deleted one. If my posts are no longer welcome, please indicate that here - and I will gladly comply, since it is not my blog.
See this helpful article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a102.pdf
Repost:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the articles.
Yes, the Majority Text is a work in progress - but it has collated a great number of manuscipts, far more than were available to the TR folk. The latter had only about seven. The work so far establishes the majority of texts not identical to the TR or Critical Text. The TR needs amending less than the Critical Text, but it does need amending.
Burgeon, whom you appeal to, was a great scholar. But he did not think the TR was perfect. He recommended some 150 changes - for example:
Matthew 6:18: ' To mention a single instance;--When our Lord first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to ‘raise the dead’(nekrous egeirete, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists; because it is found in those corrupt witnesses Aleph B C D, and the Latin copies,” (John Burgon, The Revision Revised'
Interesting in this example is the fact that the TR agrees with the Critical Text against the Majority Text. Sort of fits with your use of critical scholars to attack the Majority readings. Amazing!
Anyway, here is the full article that shows Burgeon's real position, not the KJV-Only propaganda:
Dean Burgon: The Greatest Enemy of
King James Onlyism
http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_burgon_enemy_kjvism.htm
I do not support brethren on the anti-Lordship issue, nor on the paedo-baptist issue, nor many of the things that divide real Christians.
ReplyDeleteBut blatant dishonesty is more than theological error on secondary issues. And dishonesty that is associated with a Seventh Day Adventist work at that!
"Yes, the Majority Text is a work in progress - but it has collated a great number of manuscipts, far more than were available to the TR folk."
ReplyDeleteThat's not true.
Cloud rightly points out:
“The Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament claims to be a Majority Text, but this is simply a myth. The extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any sufficient degree of certainty.”
“Upon how much arid what sort of manuscript evidence is the new Majority Text built? The Hodges-Farstad Text "is not based on any new collations of manuscripts, but is derived mainly from the labours of Von Soden earlier this century. Von Soden and his assistants collated some hundreds of manuscripts, and published the results in a massive critical edition. In his footnotes, Von Soden shows the majority text by the symbol K (short for Koine, or ‘common text’). However, at any given instance of this symbol, one can rarely be sure whether Von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question, or consulted just a representative sample. And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available" (TBS)
Further testimony to the insufficiency of Von Soden’s work is given by Wilbur Pickering:
“Such has been the soporific effect of the W-H theory that the available evidence has not been evaluated, has not been assimilated. In Aland’s words, ‘the main problem of NT textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence Is known of most of the manuscripts so far identified, and that therefore we constantly have problems with many unknowns to solve. We proceed as if the few manuscripts, which have been fully, or almost fully, studied, contained all the problems in question’ (Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri," pp. 330-1).”
Much of the work that has been done is totally flawed. Thus, in his status report on The International Greek New Testament Project given to the Society of Biblical Literature on December 29, 1967, Colwell stated:
“The preparation of a comprehensive textual apparatus has required attention to previous editions of the Greek NT, viz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, Legg. Careful study showed that the textual evidence in these editions cannot be used in the IGNT apparatus, since they fail to cite witnesses completely, consistently, and in some cases accurately” (E.C. Colwell, et al., "The International Greek New Testament Project: a Status Report," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (1968), 192, note 13,).
"Burgeon, whom you appeal to"
ReplyDeleteAnother straw-man attempt.
I quoted this man (and others) because they accurately point out the fallacies and hypocrisy of your "camp"! It doesn't follow, no matter how much you would like it to, that I agree with everything this or that person says in every case.
But, given that you claim that quoting someone automatically should be considered full agreement with everything they ever said, or say, then one can only conclude, using your own 'logic' that you must therefore be ready to stand shoulder to shoulder in full agreement with Hodge and his fellow travellers in everything that they have ever said, or say!
"Sort of fits with your use of critical scholars to attack the Majority readings"
Oh, Wolfsbane, I sense your desperation increasing!
No, all it proves is that even critical scholar types don't see your "camp" as being credible!
"KJV-Only propaganda"
There you go again, Wolfsbane! Your invective is never far from the surface, despite the fact that it is you who says "invective" is wrong - it was one of your main points throughout this debate! But, of course, you don't see that as a contradiction - quite to the contrary - in your mind, invective is never wrong when it comes from the so-called modern "Majority" Text'ers!
Burgeon speaks on the textual issue, not his views on Anglicanism or whatever. You used him for that, showing how he rejected the Critical Text. What you failed to note was the fact he argues for a majority text, rejecting TR texts that have little or no textual support.
ReplyDeleteYou can't claim his expertise on the text and reject it at the same time!
Calling the KJV-Only material 'propaganda' is not invective - just simple truth. It is a heady mixture of truth and error designed to fracture the church of God and exalt the propagators.
"You used him for that, showing how he rejected the Critical Text. What you failed to note was the fact he argues for a majority text"
ReplyDeleteAgain, since you can't / wont read:
I said that I quoted him where he points out the fallacies and hypocrisies in your "camp"!
"Calling the KJV-Only material 'propaganda' is not invective - just simple truth."
Thanks for proving my previous point, where I said:
"There you go again, Wolfsbane! Your invective is never far from the surface, despite the fact that it is you who says "invective" is wrong - it was one of your main points throughout this debate! But, of course, you don't see that as a contradiction - quite to the contrary - in your mind, invective is never wrong when it comes from the so-called modern "Majority" Text'ers!"
Wasn't it you who talked about "sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander" earlier in this debate?!
' "And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available"'
ReplyDeleteIndeed - but it constitutes a MAJORITY of the copies he examined - VERY MANY MORE than the TR people had. Unless something very odd happens, the same trend will be true for the outstanding copies. Like in the polling centre, the great majority of votes for one candidate is evident, even before all the votes are counted.
Not that any majority is respected in your argument. A handful of older witnesses, especially the heretic Priscillian, count more than 99% of the Greek manuscripts. All to establish your tradition. The TBS article you linked to shows that: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a102.pdf
"Indeed - but it constitutes a MAJORITY of the copies he examined" ... "Like in the polling centre, the great majority of votes for one candidate is evident, even before all the votes are counted. "
ReplyDeleteThis is scandalously dishonest of you to compare this issue of the, so-called, 'majority' of texts with counting votes at a polling station (Unless you simply do not posses knowledge enough of either topic to know the difference!)
It is also meaningless in this context when we see that, "The extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any sufficient degree of certainty.”
“Upon how much arid what sort of manuscript evidence is the new Majority Text built? The Hodges-Farstad Text "is not based on any new collations of manuscripts, but is derived mainly from the labours of Von Soden earlier this century. Von Soden and his assistants collated some hundreds of manuscripts, and published the results in a massive critical edition. In his footnotes, Von Soden shows the majority text by the symbol K (short for Koine, or ‘common text’). However, at any given instance of this symbol, one can rarely be sure whether Von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question, or consulted just a representative sample. And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available" (TBS)
Further testimony to the insufficiency of Von Soden’s work is given by Wilbur Pickering:
“Such has been the soporific effect of the W-H theory that the available evidence has not been evaluated, has not been assimilated. In Aland’s words, ‘the main problem of NT textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence Is known of most of the manuscripts so far identified, and that therefore we constantly have problems with many unknowns to solve. We proceed as if the few manuscripts, which have been fully, or almost fully, studied, contained all the problems in question’ (Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri," pp. 330-1).”
Much of the work that has been done is totally flawed. Thus, in his status report on The International Greek New Testament Project given to the Society of Biblical Literature on December 29, 1967, Colwell stated:
“The preparation of a comprehensive textual apparatus has required attention to previous editions of the Greek NT, viz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, Legg. Careful study showed that the textual evidence in these editions cannot be used in the IGNT apparatus, since they fail to cite witnesses completely, consistently, and in some cases accurately” (E.C. Colwell, et al., "The International Greek New Testament Project: a Status Report," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (1968), 192, note 13,).
“Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copied from one; then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and that this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original; then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority ... a majority of manuscripts is not necessarily to be preferred as correct.” - E. C. Colwell, ‘Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Its Limitations’, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1969), p.65.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I said:
In one important sense, the flawed views of the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate make the numbers issue a lynchpin error of their respective systems in choosing texts – both swinging away from orthodoxy in two, albeit different, directions.
The critical scholar rejects the need to consider the numbers issue properly, whilst the modern Majority Text advocate makes the numbers issue his primary concern.
Both are mistaken.
It is true, as the Critical scholar argues, that the numbers issue is not the be-all and end-all. Nevertheless, it is one of a number of important considerations and should be considered properly.
It is true, as the modern Majority Text advocate argues, that the numbers issue is an important consideration. Nevertheless, it is only one (and not always the most important one) of a number of considerations which should be considered.
To accept or reject a text according to the methodologies of either the Critical scholar, on the one hand, or the modern Majority Text advocate, on the other, would only serve to confirm the mistaken conclusions that result from the flawed thinking in one or other of these systems.
The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
It seems your 'holistic' approach sets aside the great majority of Greek manuscripts for the testimony of a very few manuscripts plus a very few outside sources. And as I pointed out, the heretic Priscillian among them!
ReplyDeleteAnd what is it about 'majority' that you cannot understand? The few copies the TR had, compared to the very many more that testify against it regarding 1 John 5:7, shows what a minority and a majority look like. We don't need to wait for all the manuscripts to be assessed to see that.
But it is good to see your logic drives you to adopt the Critical position on majorities. Where they don't suit your case, you dismiss them as descendants of errant copies. Hypocritically, where they do suit your case, you condemn the Critical Text for rejecting them.
Truth is not like that. It respects no one's case. It is as it is.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYou have just told a complete lie. Deliberately misrepresenting what I said (whilst double speaking - "truth isn't like that")
I said,
""The extant Greek manuscripts have never been collated and examined in such a way that a majority text could be determined with any sufficient degree of certainty.”
“Upon how much arid what sort of manuscript evidence is the new Majority Text built? The Hodges-Farstad Text "is not based on any new collations of manuscripts, but is derived mainly from the labours of Von Soden earlier this century. Von Soden and his assistants collated some hundreds of manuscripts, and published the results in a massive critical edition. In his footnotes, Von Soden shows the majority text by the symbol K (short for Koine, or ‘common text’). However, at any given instance of this symbol, one can rarely be sure whether Von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question, or consulted just a representative sample. And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available" (TBS)
Further testimony to the insufficiency of Von Soden’s work is given by Wilbur Pickering:
“Such has been the soporific effect of the W-H theory that the available evidence has not been evaluated, has not been assimilated. In Aland’s words, ‘the main problem of NT textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence Is known of most of the manuscripts so far identified, and that therefore we constantly have problems with many unknowns to solve. We proceed as if the few manuscripts, which have been fully, or almost fully, studied, contained all the problems in question’ (Aland, "The Significance of the Papyri," pp. 330-1).”
Much of the work that has been done is totally flawed. Thus, in his status report on The International Greek New Testament Project given to the Society of Biblical Literature on December 29, 1967, Colwell stated:
“The preparation of a comprehensive textual apparatus has required attention to previous editions of the Greek NT, viz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, von Soden, Legg. Careful study showed that the textual evidence in these editions cannot be used in the IGNT apparatus, since they fail to cite witnesses completely, consistently, and in some cases accurately” (E.C. Colwell, et al., "The International Greek New Testament Project: a Status Report," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (1968), 192, note 13,)."
“Suppose that there are only ten copies of a document and that nine are all copied from one; then the majority can be safely rejected. Or suppose that the nine are copied from a lost manuscript and that this lost manuscript and the other one were both copied from the original; then the vote of the majority would not outweigh that of the minority ... a majority of manuscripts is not necessarily to be preferred as correct.” - E. C. Colwell, ‘Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Its Limitations’, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1969), p.65.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I said:
In one important sense, the flawed views of the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate make the numbers issue a lynchpin error of their respective systems in choosing texts – both swinging away from orthodoxy in two, albeit different, directions.
The critical scholar rejects the need to consider the numbers issue properly, whilst the modern Majority Text advocate makes the numbers issue his primary concern.
Both are mistaken.
It is true, as the Critical scholar argues, that the numbers issue is not the be-all and end-all. Nevertheless, it is one of a number of important considerations and should be considered properly.
It is true, as the modern Majority Text advocate argues, that the numbers issue is an important consideration. Nevertheless, it is only one (and not always the most important one) of a number of considerations which should be considered.
To accept or reject a text according to the methodologies of either the Critical scholar, on the one hand, or the modern Majority Text advocate, on the other, would only serve to confirm the mistaken conclusions that result from the flawed thinking in one or other of these systems.
The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
I've enjoyed the research this debate has required of me. I had not given it much effort before, after recognising the fallacious arguments in the few pro-TR/AV articles I had read.
ReplyDeleteIt's been good to read many more - and have those first impressions solidly confirmed. The honest men among the KJV supporters are weighed down with fallacious arguments, for example: They argue for the majority of texts over against the Critical Text, because the TR has much more support from the majority than does the Critical Text. Example:
"It should be noted in this regard that the manuscripts in Erasmus' handful were a valid representation of the majority of manuscripts available at the time. In addition, while he may have hurried in his first edition, this was not true of subsequent editions of his text, in which more manuscripts and much more care were used. Other scholars carrying on Erasmus' work also were able to access and spend the necessary time examining more and more manuscripts. In 1707 Mill published a New Testament, using the Textus Receptus as his basis and printing in the margin variants culled from research on hundreds of manuscripts. No doubt they spent as much time and energy as current scholars can claim to spend, and did not have many of the distractions which are common in today's fast-paced, politically correct world.
A question which must be asked of these critics is why they complain that Erasmus used only a handful of manuscripts but applaud the use by current scholars of only three or four manuscripts which, owing primarily to age, are considered to be of more value than the vast majority of manuscripts found throughout the Church of the type used by Erasmus and his scholarly descendants."
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/560.html#six
Yet when it comes to the passages in the TR not supported by the majority, they hold to the spurious passages and make the testimony of the Latin and some individuals superior to the majority of Greek manuscripts. Note the appeal to the heretic Priscillian:
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a102.pdf
But we not only have honest men with faulty logic, we have also a lot of KJV promoters who resort to plagiarism, lies and slander.
You neglected to give the fuller quote from Pickering:
ReplyDelete"The picture is not so dark as it might be, however. The Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany has a collection of microfilms of some 5,000 of the extant Greek MSS (around 90 percent of them) and scholars connected with the Institut are collating selected ones. Scholars connected with The International Greek New Testament Project are also doing some collating.
But it is the availability of sophisticated computers and programs that seems to me to hold the key. It is now feasible to collate the MSS in Münster (or better yet, scan the MSS and let the computer do the collating, verified by the human eye) and set up a computer program such that we can find out anything we want to know about the inter-relationships of the MSS (on the basis of shared mosaics of readings). In this way it should be possible to identify and trace the pure stream of transmission of the text and to declare with confidence, based on objective criteria, the precise wording of the original text. It will take dedicated, competent people as well as money—plenty of both—but will it not be worth it? May God burden His servants!
In terms of closeness to the original, the King James Version and the Textus Receptus were the best available until 1979 and 1982. In 1979 Thomas Nelson Publishers brought out the New Testament of the NKJV, and in 1982 a critical edition of the Traditional Text (Majority, "Byzantine")—in it we have an excellent interim Greek Text to use until the full and final story can be told.[7] Although we might wish to wait for the definitive text before proceeding to an authoritative revision of the AV and NKJV, a careful job based on the interim Text would be an improvement over both the AV and all the modern versions."
And these accompanying notes:
"[1]The NKJV is an improvement upon the AV, but mainly in terms of modernizing the language—it is based on precisely the same Greek text. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text is definitely an improvement over the TR, in my view—I would say that it represents at least 99.8% of the original wording, while the TR represents about 98% (as compared with 92% for UBS4/N-A27)—however no translation of the Majority Text into English is yet available. One is being prepared and the Gospel of John is now in use (Living Water, the Gospel of John—Logos 21 Version; edited by Arthur L. Farstad and published by Absolutely Free Incorporated, Glide, OR).
[2]When all the evidence is in I believe the Textus Receptus will be found to differ from the Original in something over 1,500 places, most of them being very minor differences, whereas the critical texts (UBS/N-A) will be found to differ from the Original in over 6,500 places, many of them being serious differences."
Again, since you can't / wont read, here it is for the THIRD TIME:
ReplyDeleteI said that I quoted them where they point out the fallacies and hypocrisies in your "camp"!
It is very sad to see your hypocrisy, lies, slander, and (ironically, given your complaint) invective, Wolfsbane.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is you, like the critical scholar, make the numbers issue a lynch-pin error of your system. Besides, you completely ignore the fact that your (Hodges, based on the very faulty efforts of ) von Soden, et al.) mythical "majority" text is nothing more than a construction 'built upon sand' - a construction which the majority of scholars (from all sides of the debate) reject.
In the final analysis, to accept or reject a text according to the methodologies of either the Critical scholar, on the one hand, or the modern Majority Text advocate, on the other, would only serve to confirm the mistaken conclusions that result from the flawed thinking in one or other of these systems.
The process of selecting or rejecting texts must, rather, take a holistic approach to the important considerations regarding the theological, linguistic, philosophical, and historical issues involved, before a settled, informed, and properly discerned, conclusion can be arrived at.
Both the Critical scholar and the modern Majority Text advocate fails to adequately do this.
Deliberately misrepresenting the arguments of your opponents (as you have done so often) might convince yourself of your own mythical belief system, but the facts are the facts.
You refuse to face up to the fact that even with 'holistic' witness, the TR fails to justify the disputed passages the Majority Text points out. Appealing to a handful of witnesses, some of them doubtful and some heretical, cannot overthrow the testimony of many witnesses.
ReplyDeleteYou are just defending Tradition, not the Scripture. Your logic is truly Papal.
I've been struck by this fact: One need not even read beyond the pro-KJV proponents themselves, to see their argument is nonsensical.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the great cry against a poorer version like the NIV is that it is so flawed that it cannot be considered a proper Bible. Yet the more honest proponents, such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, acknowledge the LXX was a poor version but was the version quoted by Christ and the apostles, and was THE OT of the Early Church:
"The Septuagint: God's Blessing on Translation
by Debra E. Anderson
The Septuagint Today
Today the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is available to people around the world. The Hebrew translated into a multitude of languages has made the Old Testament accessible to millions. Greek readers have the Old Testament in their own language, which is more readily understood than the antiquated form of Greek found in the Septuagint. Thus, many question the need for the Septuagint today.
However, the Septuagint continues to fill a place, particularly in Bible translation. The Hebrew of the Old Testament, while beautiful in its phrasing and form, is not always clear. The Septuagint, having been translated without anti-Christian bias and without the warping of modern liberal or neo-orthodox theology, provides an edition of the Old Testament which predates the earliest available Hebrew manuscript. Thus, although inferior to the Hebrew text, on occasion the Septuagint is a helpful aid in translation and Old Testament study.
More beneficial to the average Christian is the acknowledgement that our Saviour and His closest disciples used a translation of the Scriptures. We can rest in the knowledge that it is not necessary to read Greek and Hebrew in order to have access to the Word of God.
It pleased God to bless the Septuagint, and His people through it; even so He has been pleased to provide His Word in a variety of other translations and languages to His people throughout the centuries throughout the world. May He continue to do so, until that day in which His Word reaches its final fulfilment!"
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
If the use of poorer versions was good enough for our Lord and His apostles, it should be good enough for us. Let's acknowledge them to be substantially the word of God, not ridicule them as 'perversions'. None of our translations are perfect, but most are as good as the LXX at least.
Such hypocritical nonsense!
ReplyDeleteThe NKJV uses a number of minority texts, yet you promote that ... so evidently you are still lying and/or are completely ignorant of the subject, and as for your straw-man about, "if the use of poorer versions was good enough for our Lord and His apostles, it should be good enough for us." - that says it all! Such a silly, twisted logic. You are trying to justify the acceptance of a mythological text such as the modern so-called "majority" text using that!
What a silly little man!
With the Lord Jesus and His apostles for company, I'm happy to be called a 'silly little man'. Especially by one who dismisses everything they can't answer as a 'strawman'.
ReplyDeleteEven the majority text in Eramsus' day did not include 1 John 5:7. Now we have very many more manuscripts - giving the same testimony. They are the Byzantine Text which you appeal to when it suits, but reject when it departs from your pet version. Sad. And when you revile other believers over it, not only sad, but sinful.
No, you are actually a liar and deceiver. I do well to point out your silliness and your sinful ways.
ReplyDeleteYou try to justify the use of a mythical text called the modern, so-called "Majority Text", (which is almost universally disregarded by serious scholarship), by saying that other people have quoted imperfect texts (which even the AV, as every single commentator on this blog has admitted is not perfection). But this, is a straw-man argument you use (and again, I shall continue to call your straw-man arguments "straw-man" - for that is what they are!). because, in effect, what you are saying is that if one person uses an imperfect text, then all imperfect texts are justified on that basis.
Again, you deceive and misrepresent when you talk about the position of those who favour the use of the KJV ... because you begin with the straw-man proposition that those who favour the use of the KJV as THE most accurate in the English tongue consider it to be perfection.
You lie.
Ironic (and dastardly hypocritical), then, for you to be lecturing others about sin.
Far from not answering you, I expose you. I know you don't like that, evidenced by the number of times you have completely ignored what I have actually said, or by the number of times that you have outright lied about it on other occasions, coupled by your childish little temper tantrums ... but it's to be expected of you, Ian ... your reputation precedes you!
Going by the fruit you bear every time you open your mouth and lie, I'd doubt very much that you are "in the Lord Jesus's company"!
No, I'm not saying all imperfect texts are justified on that basis. Just that the LXX is as imperfect as the Critical Text, yet you have to admit it was used by the Lord and the apostles.
ReplyDeleteStephen, I did not say you held the KJV to perfect. I indeed said you would change some bits - 'Easter' for example. But you still refuse to accept ANY change to the underlying Greek text, as far as I can see. If I'm wrong, please say which words/verses you hold to be in error in the Greek text used by the KJV.
You go on to accuse me of being in the habit of 'childish little temper tantrums', that I am reputed for that. Now I have many struggles with sin, but I'm not aware that having 'childish little temper tantrums' is one of them.
However, it is good to hear how others perceive you. So give some specific examples of my 'childish little temper tantrums' you have heard of. If they are valid, I'll confess.
If you don't, that will prove to all here that you are a liar and an accuser of the brethren.
Over to you.
"If you don't, that will prove..."
ReplyDeleteFaulty logic there.
If I don't, it would simply mean that I'm not rising to your bait!
You use faulty logic a lot! - especially when you bring up issues that have been addressed already - yet you either deny that such is the case, or ignore that such is the case, (and then, despite having re-pasted my statements quite a few times for some arguments, as can be seen in this current Post thread) you then raise issues again and again demanding that re-pastes be made! READ WHAT HAS BEEN ARGUED since the beginning of the debate! - and stop lying and ripping stuff out of context!!)
Interesting too that you focused primarily on the temper tantrum issue ... I also mentioned your lies.
"Over to you"
Your insincerity oozes from that!
As for "an accuser of the brethren" - your guilt in this is seen on virtually every page of the debate ... given your complaint, that would mean you are a hypocrite too.
I am prepared to spend whatever time necessary debating these issues with genuine believers who are genuinely interested in discussing these issues - both with those who agree with me and those who do not (as I often have done and do).
ReplyDeleteIt has been clear to me from quite early on in this debate that you are not genuine. You are evidently a very bitter man against those who consider the KJV to be the most accurate in the English tongue. No matter how you try and cloak your views, you always end up showing your true colours - namely you have a real hatred against those who hold to the KJV.
Your petty attempts to try and make us all believe that your bone of contention is simply the need to not hold onto a certain version out of tradition is laughable. First of all, because many of those whom you dispute with do not hold to the KJV out of tradition. They hold to it because it is the most accurate in the English tongue that has ever been translated. It is superior in many respects.
But the most obvious thing in all of this is your hatred for the KJV folks. If you were even one tenth as concerned about accuracy of Scripture as you would try to have us believe, then you would have a lot more to say about the plethora of very much less accurate versions out there ... yet, lo and behold, no! You defend them all - even the NIV which is not even on speaking terms with the sort of accuracy that much more literal translations can speak of. You certainly do not criticise any other translation anywhere nearly as much as you do the KJV ... because that is where your real hatred is focused - on the KJV.
You hate the KJV and those who use it - and it is blatantly obvious!
Well, I have news for you! You may get used to it!! ... the KJV is still the best (by far) and it isn't going away! Certainly as for as what is coming out nowadays in the field of Bible translation, the KJV looks set to stay no1 for accuracy (and it's other strengths).
Now, fire off whatever invective you want - hey - I'll even be happy to let you have the last word (since that's what you crave, going by the other online forums where I have observed you in operation). Tell whatever lies you want, and twist whatever you like - I do not intend to waste time on your filthy lies and contortions of the truth aimed at drawing the brethren into contention, since that's all you seem to do these days. The fact is, that which I HAVE said is there for all to see, and IN CONTEXT ... and no amount of your misrepresentation or out of context quoting will do anything to change the facts.
I do not hate the KJV or its supporters. It is a good version. Any criticism I give it is only to expose the folly of those - like yourself - who make it the ONLY true Bible. I point out the places it is in error. I point out its weaknesses. It's errors and weaknesses are less than in the NIV. But my point is that even the NIV is still the word of God, not the perversion you make it out to be. I drew the analogy to the LXX, quoted by Christ and the apostles.
ReplyDeleteAgain and again you say you have answered my objections, but when I ask you to point your answers out, you decline. That's because you had none. You are lying, Stephen, maybe not to the rest of us, but certainly to yourself. You are just passing on to us the delusion you have swallowed.
You accused me of lying - yet I point out the very statements you made that you accused me of lying about. Yet your accusations continue.
You made the accusation: "your childish little temper tantrums ... but it's to be expected of you, Ian ... your reputation precedes you!" I asked for proof, but you again decline to back up your case.
You are fairly typical of the KJV-Only cultists I have read. Poor logic, fantasy history, lying and slander. You have exposed yourself for what you are, to honest people. The dishonest will swallow your nonsense and be comforted by it - but the rest of us will learn by it not to trust the word of any man - even those who claim to defend the faith - but to 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.'(KJV); Test all things; hold fast what is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21